See here.
"And suddenly it struck me: atheism is dead. The big bang has killed it. And it is safe to say that in this day and age, if you meet an atheist, then that person is either ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that)."
"Now, I would never take the faith of atheists away from them, because it gives them comfort, and hope that no one will ever hold them accountable. It is also important for them to have some privatized, subjective way of looking down on other people, so that they can feel better about themselves, despite their flight from science and reason. I really admire the way that by sheer force of will, they are able to believe things without a shred of objective evidence. But, when we discuss these matters in the public square, I think we should insist that we limit our discussion to the available public, testable evidence."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDawkins is the author of the blind watchmaker, right? I would like to see him argue with a Marcionite. It would be quite humorous.
ReplyDeleteDawkins: "God is a blind watchmaker."
Macrion: "Yes, the creator god is blind, but the Alien God is not."
Dawkins: "What the....?"
Atheists focus all their energy on disproving one conception of God and they can't even do that. IF someone comes at them with an unorthodox view of God their brains will explode.
The atheists I discuss evolution with, stay firmly in the bounds od the evidence in the Earth. The fossils.
ReplyDeleteWhen I do discuss the origin of the universe, they say neither of us has evidence, and simply theory. And in years to come, more and more evidence will be obtained, and so some day in the future we will know how the universe came into being, just as darwin developed his evidence and proof.
I think I'm getting this right. I'm an amature at all this and yet I believe God likes to use naive and simple minded folk like me sometimes to preach the truth in love to even Einsteins.
Commenter donsands, you write:
ReplyDelete"When I do discuss the origin of the universe, they say neither of us has evidence, and simply theory. And in years to come, more and more evidence will be obtained, and so some day in the future we will know how the universe came into being, just as darwin developed his evidence and proof."
First of all, you need to talk a look at the Cambrian explosion, especially this paper: http://www.discovery.org/a/2177 written by Stephen C. Meyer. That is a prestigious, published, peer-reviewed paper showing that the fossil record supports an intelligent designer.
Second, you need to know that what what your opponents are saying there is just so much blind faith. It is faith in the atheism of the gaps. The point of my post on Winter Knight is that the progress of science has taken us from an atheist-friendly eternal universe to a universe created out of nothing that is agressively suggesting a creator of the universe. And there are multiple lines in various scientific disciplines that are converging on the reality of a creator and designer of the universe, one discovery at a time.
Read the post and see for yourself.
"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
(Heb 11:3)
Sorry, my scripture did not come out right in my last comment. Here is the fixed version.
ReplyDelete"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
(Rom 1:20-21)
"By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."
(Heb 11:3)
"First of all, you need to talk a look at the Cambrian explosion,"
ReplyDeleteI did mention that.
His response: "I cannot offer explanations in a blog comment that would take me a whole academic semester to teach. You should cast aside all your preconceived notions about Adam and Eve and Noah's Ark and start learning again from scratch, with a purely open mind.
The problem is that if one has chosen to be a fundamentalist, they don't WANT to have an open mind and seek the real truth about how the world operates."
My response: ""The problem is that if one has chosen to be a fundamentalist, they don't WANT to have an open mind and seek the real truth about how the world operates."
That maybe true for some, I agree. But not for all.
I have an open mind, and am unafraid of evidence.
"I cannot offer explanations in a blog comment that would take me a whole academic semester to teach."
That makes sense."
Another quote from me: ""Scientists should admit that science does not provide any evidence against well-formulated theology. On the other hand, religion should not oppose scientific progress." -Martin Nowak Professor of Mathematic and Biology at Harvard"
His response: "Scientists should admit that science does not provide any evidence against well-formulated theology
I agree. Science does not seek to do that. However, science can show that there is no requirement to invoke a supernatural entity in order to explain the origin and development of life on earth (and other natural phenomena outside my sphere of competence). And since the scientific explanations are more parsimonious (make fewer assumptions) than theological, they are preferred.
There is ample evidence to explain, for example, that the whole of humanity could not have been derived from just two people so recently in the history of life on earth."
And so we have gone back and forth for a good while now.
I have mainly discussed the resurrection of Christ, and 1st and 2nd Peter, and this scientist has discussed the whole sphere of darwinism.
The Lord has helped me through many others, Keith Mathison was a big help.
And i now appreciate your ehlp as well.
I really like this man, and we have had our falling out times, but the Lord has seemed to bring us back together to discuss these things openly on another sisters blog.
Thanks for your interaction.
Have a blessed Lord's day.
Donsands,
ReplyDeleteI admire your resolve. But there's something to keep in mind.
A) First off, an atheist could have (and perhaps would have) said a century or longer ago, 'Sure, an eternal universe is an assumption right now. But as time goes on, we will amass more and more evidence, and provide proof.' It didn't work out. There's a danger for either side supposing that, eventually, the proof will back up their views. Heck, it's a danger to assume that proof will be available, period. There may well be limits to human knowledge.
B) The atheist does not make fewer assumptions. Science itself makes no assumptions - but science itself will not answer whether or not the evidence points to a designer. The theistic response to scientific findings amounts to there being a fundamental intelligence at work in our universe, in part or in whole. The atheist response is that there is no such fundamental intelligence at all - everything was borne out of sheer unintended luck.
One problem here (and there are several) is that the atheist typically tries to offer up luck as 'nothing', while a fundamental intellect at work is 'something'. In reality, by assuming that utter blind luck and purposelessness is capable of producing agents who in turn can produce things intentionally, the atheist is making one hell of a commitment and suggesting something undemonstrable about nature. The slightest bit of fundamental intelligence or intention wrecks their whole outlook. The theist meanwhile has vastly more freedom in a broad sense - maybe all things are intended by an intelligence. Maybe only some things are intended. But we have immediate experience that an intelligence is capable of orchestrating some things, by virtue of our being agents to begin with.
Now, I'm the odd man out on this blog: My views are closer to intelligent design and/or theistic evolution. However, even atheists lately have started to admit to their being justification for a 'design' outlook in nature - from David Chalmers and Nick Bostrom talking about simulations, to Paul Davies (deist, perhaps) suggesting that if multiple universes exist (or, in my view, an eternal past) then not only is the question of God as ultimate origin still an issue, but you're guaranteed to have simulated universes spawning as a result of the multiverse.
I could go on, but suffice to say: Simply examining nature will not get you to Christianity. But it will, hands down, lead you to design and a justification of some kind of fundamental intelligence/designer far easier than it can lead you to utter lack of design and blind chance. The faith component required for that leap is not merely comparable to a theistic belief, but more demanding.
Thanks for introducing me to the Wintery Knight blog. It looks very interesting.
ReplyDeleteAlso, don't lose or abandon the edge with which you wrote this post. I think it is eminently within the bounds to mirror the same rhetorical style (sans profanity) of atheists and to see that they can take it as well as they can dish it out.
If they can't, then they're wuss hypocrites.
Don said:
ReplyDelete---
The atheists I discuss evolution with, stay firmly in the bounds od the evidence in the Earth. The fossils.
---
I know I've mentioned it before, and Steve did a huge post on it, but have you read Gee's In Search of Deep Time regarding those pesky fossils? :-)
BTW, I find it funny that my word verification word today is "pikerst". I blame Bush. :-P
"Gee's In Search of Deep Time"
ReplyDeleteThanks. I'll check it out.
Peter: I blame Bush.
ReplyDeleteVytautas: Are you going to blame Obama instead of Bush?
Check by later this week at my blog, I intend to write another post in the series in the snarky tone. I've got 800 hits in 5 days and 70% are on this story! The people have spoken - they have asked for snark, and it's snark they will get!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, I have a new post on the problem of evil. No snark, but a pretty good response to an atheist in the comments.
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/atheism-christianity-and-the-problem-of-evil-and-suffering/
Vytautas said:
ReplyDelete---
Are you going to blame Obama instead of Bush?
---
No. Everything, everywhere, is and always has been Bush's fault. World without end. Bush's fault.
And Global Warming.
Which is also Bush's fault.